I'm starting to doubt more and more if I should buy a GTX 580. People saying they only get 24 FPS at Heathrow, with not even super high settings, and the same setup as me except the graphics card.I get the same with my bad GTX 320! I'm wondering if a new graphics card will make a lot of difference...

ATI s Are the way to go I have an old 5770 HD http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/ati-radeon-hd-5000/hd-5770/Pages/ati-radeon-hd-5770-overview.aspx and I get 30fps consistently in FSX at all airports in the NGX, its all about the setup. patience my young padawan.Wycliffe

I'm starting to doubt more and more if I should buy a GTX 580. People saying they only get 24 FPS at Heathrow, with not even super high settings, and the same setup as me except the graphics card.I get the same with my bad GTX 320! I'm wondering if a new graphics card will make a lot of difference...

That's a good question which I can't answer but the GTX560 Ti seems to be popular as an affordable card (AUD275) against the GTX580 (AUD549) and then the ATI 6970 (AUD388). These prices are based on ASUS cards and indicative only. I've always had nVidia cards until my current card and the only reason I went ATI was to try something different, and that's not very scientific. I did look at some of the benchmark charts beforehand though.

ATI s Are the way to go I have an old 5770 HD http://www.amd.com/u...0-overview.aspx and I get 30fps consistently in FSX at all airports in the NGX, its all about the setup. patience my young padawan.Wycliffe

But then nVidia appears to be more popular for FSX - I'm confused. So maybe I'll stick with my current card for a while and concentrate on the everything else. If only I'd known about Sandy Bridge. And what's all this about the Ivy Bridge? More Confused... :( Actually I'm getting pretty good fps but I'm running too hot so going to go back to 190x21 for the time being...tomorrow.

ATI s Are the way to go I have an old 5770 HD http://www.amd.com/u...0-overview.aspx and I get 30fps consistently in FSX at all airports in the NGX, its all about the setup. patience my young padawan.Wycliffe

ATI (AMD) is not recommended for FSX. They may perform quite well, yes, but they have some problem with shaders, which can cause bad fps in clouds. For me it will be NVIDIA no matter what. But what should I get? I just discovered a new graphics card. the GTX 560TI-448, which is not a regular GTX 560TI which has 384 shader units, and the GTX 560TI-448, has 448 shader units. The one from Asus looks really good to me and is around 280 euros. I heard that the GTX 580 will not perform much better in FSX. So perhaps when we'll switch to XPlane 10 (or antoher platfrom) in the future, I can put a second GTX 560TI-448 with it.

ATI (AMD) is not recommended for FSX. They may perform quite well, yes, but they have some problem with shaders, which can cause bad fps in clouds. For me it will be NVIDIA no matter what.But what should I get? I just discovered a new graphics card. the GTX 560TI-448, which is not a regular GTX 560TI which has 384 shader units, and the GTX 560TI-448, has 448 shader units. The one from Asus looks really good to me and is around 280 euros. I heard that the GTX 580 will not perform much better in FSX. So perhaps when we'll switch to XPlane 10 (or antoher platfrom) in the future, I can put a second GTX 560TI-448 with it.

Looks like we won't be seeing it down under http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/News/281758,confirmed-australia-misses-out-on-new-nvidia-gpu.aspx

The nVidia ATI debate will go on and on just like the intel AMD shennanigans.I was nvidia for years until I had some cash burning ahole in my pocket. I couldn't get the current nVidia card atthe time due to nVidia not being able to supply its manufactures with the GPU or some such so I plumped for an ATI on the advice of a friend. I have no problems with it and as for the shader issue in clouds I know not of what you speak.I have always said "if it looks good to you then that is all that matters" and I stand by that.Turn off the FPS counter it will drive you insane and just take a a look at what it looks like on screen, if your happy then yoru happy.Wycliffe

I get about 30 fps unlocked but locked thru antilag.... I have recently uninstalled windows vista, installed windows 7 and WOW!!Then I reinstalled all of the ******* tweaks posted and linked anywhere here on avsim, from the tweaking tool online - and reinstalled all my FS stuff...NGX etc.....Now, I get 30fps in default dense scenery and dense autogen at any airport with the NGX VC - using the less complex gauges option from PMDG menuand in ORBX PDX believe it or not, same complexity about 20 to 23 fps~and this is all on an i7 950 3.06gz laptop!!

I updated from a GTX295 (dual core) GPU to a GTX570 last week. I am really impressed with the FPS increase but i think that this is mainly due to the SLi with the 295. It was driving me mad with all the flickers etc.... I know FSX is mainly CPU intensive but sometimes a nice card updtate will surprise you. I really wasn't expecting how it is now, at Heathrow it doesn't go too much above 25-28 fps but its nice and smooth. I also have the FPS locked in inspector which i think helps put more power where its needed. This is a new update from the 280 drivers onwards now not just the beta drivers.Andy Blake

Edited January 12, 201214 yr by Andy10r

15 fps is enogh for fsx more than that is just good but not nessesary.i have a i7 920 4 ghzgtx 58010000 rpm harddrive6 gb 1600 mhz memory.

I get about 30 fps unlocked but locked thru antilag.... I have recently uninstalled windows vista, installed windows 7 and WOW!!Then I reinstalled all of the ******* tweaks posted and linked anywhere here on avsim, from the tweaking tool online - and reinstalled all my FS stuff...NGX etc.....Now, I get 30fps in default dense scenery and dense autogen at any airport with the NGX VC - using the less complex gauges option from PMDG menuand in ORBX PDX believe it or not, same complexity about 20 to 23 fps~and this is all on an i7 950 3.06gz laptop!!

Just goes to show that there 'ain't nuffin queerer than FSX!

If you want to enjoy FSX, stop displaying the fps. Real pilots don't need it so why should you?

That is absolutely right! Do not watch your FPS - or you will change to an "always-on-the-FPS-looker" (just like me) and destroy your FSX experiences!!!

That is absolutely right! Do not watch your FPS - or you will change to an "always-on-the-FPS-looker" (just like me) and destroy your FSX experiences!!!

+1

An i5 760 should get 4.0GHz easily - are you sure you're doing the overclocking correctly?Follow this guide:http://www.techreaction.net/2010/09/07/3-step-overclocking-guide-lynnfield/

I go by how smooth the flight is not by the fp counter is what i go by

You could always try the Xplane 10 demo.I have, it looks good although the GUI is a pain the butt. It's a monster to setup and I just couldnt be bothered with all the fiddling.So now the demo has been consigned toe the software bin in the ethernet and I will stick with FSX for many years to come.Wycliffe